Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I have another parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I didn't receive an answer to my last question. I think that's regrettable. But I would ask, is any legislative text posted online? Has any legislative text for the bill we are about to consider been put online in bill form for the American people to read?

Mr. CAMP. I'm sorry. Could the Speaker repeat that? The SPEAKER pro tempore: The gentleman may speak to the bill clerk regarding a particular bill's number.

Mr. CAMP. I understand there is no bill number for the clerks to give me. Is there text available on the legislation?

Mr. CAMP. Is the Speaker aware that the clerks have a bill number that I could speak to and obtain?

Mr. CAMP. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about a scheduling matter. I am asking, is the text of the bill available at the desk at which you are standing?

Mr. CAMP. I am not asking about a matter of scheduling, Mr. Speaker. I am asking about a bill number for tax legislation of great importance to the American people which I understand may be up momentarily. However, we have no information on this side about that. And as the minority, I do believe we are entitled to some notice and understanding of the business that will be coming before the House.

Mr. CAMP. I understand there will be a suspension under the committee of jurisdiction of which I am ranking member. I have no information on that. Does the Chair have any information on that?

Mr. CAMP. We understand that the measure may involve tax implications, which are, of course, of great importance to the American people. Does this legislation have a bill number?

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CAMP. Is the House in session at this time?

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Is it in order to ask the Speaker the next order of business?

Mr. CAMP. Does the Speaker have an agenda with the next order of business before him?

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in Congress, I don't think I have seen a more disappointing time for this House. I had great hopes when my colleague from Michigan, Sander Levin, assumed the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee after the ethical charges against a man I worked closely with, Mr. Rangel, who was the chairman. I know it's difficult to come into a leadership position partway through a Congress, but I have to say to a fellow colleague from Michigan, the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion, the lack of attempts to bring things to this Congress in a bipartisan way, which I believe has more balance than bills written alone, in secret by the Democratic Party late at night than are brought to this floor with maybe moments notice--I think this bill was given to us less than 10 minutes ago. I think that is regrettable. I think it is unfortunate. I don't think it needed to be that way. We have always had a great working relationship. Many delegation meetings over the years in working on behalf of issues common to Michigan, now I had hoped we would work together on behalf of issues important to America. It is unfortunate that the leaders of this Congress on the Democrat side have really taken control and not given the chairman the latitude he needs to really draft bills in a bipartisan way. I think it's unfortunate that control has been ceded to the leaders in such a way that make it impossible for us to work together on issues that I think the American people are crying out for to be worked on in a bipartisan manner. This was supposed to be the most open, the most transparent, the most ethical Congress. I think we have seen events of this week prove that otherwise. And I don't mean just the publicity events. I mean events on the way these bills are brought to the floor without any discussions or consultation. We have great staffs on both sides in the Ways and Means Committee. Our staffs do tremendous work. They are capable of working together if given the opportunity. And I think we could resolve these issues in a way that would benefit all Americans. Last night, I intended to offer a motion to recommit that we gave full notice to the other side about--unlike what we are seeing today-- that would have eliminated the new onerous job-killing 1099 requirement that's in the health care law. In addition to helping small business, the motion to recommit would have better protected taxpayers from erroneously paying too much in health insurance subsidies. And the motion would have cut taxes, cut spending, protected taxpayers, and reduced the deficit. But as we saw last night, because Democrat leaders were too afraid to let their Members vote on a pro-jobs, pro-small business, pro-taxpayer, pro-deficit reduction bill, they canceled the vote and pulled the bill from consideration by the House. Instead, we are here today, as we have been so often under the heavy- handed tactics of the majority, voting on a bill that has not been reviewed by committee, that has not been posted online for 72 hours, has not been reviewed by the employers this bill will affect, and most importantly, has not been reviewed by the American public in any way. The result? The Democrats have created a bill that pits American employers against other American employers, worker against worker, neighbor against neighbor. With unemployment stuck at nearly 10 percent, Democrats are again playing politics with American jobs. This is not the time for politics; this is a time to get serious about the economy and helping businesses create jobs. Frankly, it didn't have to be this way, and it should not have been this way. There is a way to pay for the repeal of the 1099 requirement without punishing job providers and their workers and their families. Additionally, we would have protected taxpayers by cracking down on fraud and abuse. And if someone received an erroneous or excessive benefit that they were not entitled to, they would have been required to repay it. The bill before us leaves that very important flaw in place. I have in my hands a way to do this without raising taxes and killing jobs: It is the motion to recommit I intended to offer last night but was not given the opportunity to do so. I will have it inserted into the Congressional Record so that everyone can see that we can save jobs without raising taxes. Small businesses supported the measure, Republicans supported the measure, and it's clear that rank-and-file Democrats would have supported the measure. Somehow, Democrat leaders are so opposed to helping small businesses--the real job creators in this country--that they wouldn't even allow a vote on a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that also didn't include a massive job-killing tax increase. Why are Democrats so afraid to work with Republicans to help America's job creators? Why don't Democrats allow Republicans to offer amendments on behalf of small businesses? And why are they so bent on raising taxes? Isn't $670 billion alone in tax increases in this Congress enough? Why? It is because Democrats are more interested in protecting their $1 trillion health care law than solving legitimate problems being expressed by the American people and American employers. So, while it is clear that Democrats have admitted that the burden imposed by their health care law is a job killer, they are offering no solution today, because the bill before us will undoubtedly have the effect of killing jobs. Frankly, this is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to fix a fundamental flaw in the health care law, and it is a missed opportunity to truly help American employers in the jobs they provide. A job is a job is a job. I urge my colleagues to stand up for job providers by demanding a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that does not impose other job- killing tax increases. Motion To Recommit With Instructions Offered by Mr. Camp of Michigan Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5893 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Thank you for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of 9/11 will never be forgotten nor will we ever forget the heroic actions of the brave men and women who, without regard to their own well-being, rushed in to aid, rescue, and recover their fellow Americans. Theirs were acts of compassion and patriotism that would be repeated in the days and months that followed. Today, many of those who were at and around the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks are still struggling physically and mentally. While I have great sympathy for the intent of this legislation in providing assistance to those Americans, the legislation has been paired with a fundamentally flawed and job-destroying tax increase. Therefore, I will vote against it. To pay for this new health care entitlement, the majority has opted for a tax increase that has no chance of becoming law and with good reason. It taxes American jobs. It is in clear violation of our international obligations. While the provision in question closely tracks legislation that has passed the House on a partisan basis, the Senate has repeatedly rejected it. Even the Obama administration has raised objections to the way this provision violates our carefully negotiated tax treaties. There is never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that: Forty-seven States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus passed; Over 2 million jobs have been eliminated; and Unemployment remains unacceptably high--over 13 percent in my home State of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the tax hike in this legislation is unacceptable. The hardships suffered by our first responders do not change that basic fact. I urge my colleagues to, again, reject these tax hikes and to vote ``no'' on the legislation.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the look-back. I think it's odd so many speakers today have begun all their remarks with a look-back and attempt to re- litigate history and are sort of picking selective parts of history. The fact is, when this budget was balanced there was a Republican Congress, yes, with a Democrat President. Maybe we ought to try that combination again. But let me just say, the people back home are concerned about today. They're concerned about the problems today, not re-litigating what may have been or might have been. Back home in Michigan, unemployment is nearly 14 percent; nationwide, nearly 10 percent. The fact is now, today--not in the 1980s, not in the 1990s, not in the Bush administration--today we've lost 700,000 manufacturing jobs, and the fact is employers in America have said this bill will hurt jobs; this will not help us create private sector jobs. And we have group after group that has come forward and said this bill hurts jobs. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds. Look, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs. If there was such great job creation because of the stimulus bill, why have we seen the unemployment rate continue to hover around 10 percent? And, frankly, any minor reductions in it are because people have stopped looking for work. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my friend. It's not complicated. American employers say this bill will kill jobs. Look, the Democrats promised the stimulus would create millions of jobs. It hasn't. They promised it would create 3.7 million jobs. Well, that hasn't occurred. Instead, since the stimulus, through June of 2010, the U.S. has lost 2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving Americans to ask: Where are the jobs? Forty-seven out of 50 States have lost jobs. No wonder more Americans think Elvis is alive than believe the stimulus created jobs. Democrats promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment has reached 10 percent and remains stuck near at that level today. And in addition to that high official unemployment, over 3 million other Americans are simply dropped out of the labor force, what some call the missing unemployed. And the flood of deficit spending from Democrats' policies have driven the debt to an astonishing $13 trillion. The debt is so huge, it is already hurting job creation. Using the administration's own forecasts, the surge in debt caused by the stimulus and other Democrat policies has already destroyed 1 million jobs. Unemployment and debt have soared by a combined 60 percent since the President took office. That's an Obama misery index that reflects current and future damage caused by Democrats' failed policies. And while the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting worse, the trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic that, at the current rate, it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs lost during this recession. That's longer than it took to recover jobs during the Depression in the 1930s. Others say it could take as long as until 2021 to get employment back to prerecession levels However, the Democrats' agenda has helped one industry--government. Managing all of that spending helped government jobs grow by 201,000 since the stimulus, helping to make Washington, D.C., and the area the Nation's strongest job market. Meanwhile, construction, loss of 853,000; manufacturing, loss of 707,000 jobs. Jobs across the U.S. have plummeted despite promises they would grow by 1.1 million. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Mean Committee.

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. It has been nearly 1\1/2\ years since the President signed the $1 trillion stimulus bill into law, and now the majority has come up with a new ``Make It in America'' agenda, which begs the question, if the stimulus was such a success, why don't we already make it in America? The facts are that, after stimulus, the unemployment rate continues to hover near 10 percent, well above the 8 percent we were promised. Instead of creating or saving 3.7 million jobs, over 2.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost, including over 707,000 manufacturing jobs, and nearly 100,000 in my home State of Michigan. Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs. Now we used to make it in America. And if Democrats would stop passing bills that spend more money on State and local governments and instead focus on small businesses, we might actually see the real sustained private-sector job creation Americans need. In fact, I submit for the Record a letter here from the United States Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses. They oppose this bill. Let me just read you what that letter says, what real job creators think about this bill. The Chamber says this bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.'' I want to repeat that. This bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.'' That's right. This bill raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it tougher for Americans to find needed work. You cannot expect to increase jobs in this country when you are increasing taxes. It just doesn't work. That is exactly what the majority is proposing to do in this bill. Now, this bill does closely resemble a bill the majority has already pushed through the House once before, H.R. 4849, the so-called Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. At the time, I said the bill was more about small governments than it was about small businesses since most of the bill was about getting aid to State and local governments instead of helping small businesses. Like H.R. 4849, the vast majority of spending in the bill today--a whopping $25.6 billion over 11 years--goes to State and local governments through various infrastructure incentives. These include a substantial increase in spending on the Build America Bonds program, a heavily subsidized spending program providing direct payments to State and local governments that issue these bonds. Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create the kind of private sector jobs we need. Unlike H.R. 4849, however, the Democrats didn't even bother to provide token tax relief for small business in this bill. In case you need more evidence that this bill isn't about helping U.S. employers or about helping Americans find jobs, just look at the extra $5 billion in welfare spending in this bill. It is so much money that the CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says the States won't even be able to spend all of it. Democrats claim this spending is for jobs, but 75 percent of these welfare emergency funds that were already given to States have been spent on more welfare checks, not on jobs. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Washington, DC, July 28, 2010. To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, opposes H.R. 5893, the ``Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010,'' which would impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth. This legislation contains numerous changes to longstanding U.S. international tax law which are severely detrimental to American worldwide companies. For example: Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income not subject to U.S. taxation by reason of covered asset acquisitions--This provision relates primarily to Sec. 338, which allows taxpayers the ability to characterize stock acquisitions as asset acquisitions for U.S. tax purposes. An acquisition can be concluded as either a share acquisition or an asset acquisition. Acquisitions by American worldwide companies are good for the U.S. economy--they provide additional jobs and broaden the U.S. tax base. Section 338 recognizes the inherent challenges and obstacles to asset acquisitions and, in effect, levels the playing field, allowing taxpayers the ability to choose the tax implications of an acquisition, regardless of the willingness of a seller to agree to one form or the other of a particular deal. Moreover, Sec. 338 unquestionably serves to encourage acquisitions by American worldwide companies by minimizing the competitive advantage that certain foreign competitors enjoy due to the participation exemption systems in which most are headquartered. This legislation would significantly strip away the benefits of Sec. 338 and would likely serve to further impede any competitive advantages of American worldwide companies in their bids for foreign targets. Limitation on the use of Sec. 956 for foreign tax credit planning (i.e., the ``hopscotch'' rule)--Section 956, a longstanding provision of the Code, allows companies to repatriate cash to the United States in a tax-efficient manner. Foreign business acquisitions generally result in a series of intermediate foreign holding companies which block the repatriation of earnings for a variety of reasons such as local statutory earnings deficits or other local restrictions on actual dividends. American worldwide companies have had the ability to overcome such obstacles through the use of Sec. 956. This provision was particularly beneficial during the recent economic downturn and ensuing credit crunch when it was necessary for American worldwide companies to repatriate significant funds in order to meet the financial needs of their U.S. businesses. The revenue raising estimate for this provision seems to assume that taxpayers would simply bear the additional cost of the provision. However, the Chamber believes that most taxpayers, given the choice, would choose simply to not repatriate the earnings. Therefore, the legislation's proposed change to Sec. 956 would significantly reduce the repatriation of foreign earnings that otherwise might have been repatriated to the United States. That is a poor option if Congress seeks to enact provisions which stimulate economic growth and drive job creation. The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 5893 because this legislation would make significant changes to U.S. international tax law which would stifle job creation and stunt economic growth. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard. Sincerely, R. Bruce Josten, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increasing taxes on American employers and on increasing taxes on American jobs and to vote ``no'' on this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that these welfare emergency fund jobs only last as long as the funding does. Frankly, nearly half of the ``jobs'' Democrats claim have been created are summer jobs, which are either over or are about to be. Let me just say that it is pretty well-known here that Governors of every political stripe are obviously looking to the Federal Government for cash, but the fact is we are broke. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).